Understanding and Tackling Barriers to Reporting Hate Crime: Evidence Review

3. Barriers to reporting hate crime

Five key barriers to reporting hate crime have been identified from the evidence reviewed and compiled in this report. These are summarised briefly below.

1. Lack of awareness – not everyone is aware of what hate crime is and how to report it

2. Perceptions of the police and justice system – some people do not think that the police will take their complaint seriously

3. Perception that the offence is not serious enough or is commonplace – some people may believe that incidents are ‘not serious enough’ to be reported or occur too frequently to report it each time

4. Fear of things getting worse by telling the police – for instance, due to (a) the risk of reprisals from the perpetrator or others learning information about the victim that they don’t wish to be wider knowledge

5. Accessibility and language barriers – reporting options available may not be suited to some communication or accessibility needs to enable people to report

The following sub-sections explore the evidence around each barrier in more detail, and, where relevant, consider strategies and approaches which evidence suggests may be effective for tackling that barrier. The order the barriers are discussed in is not intended to reflect the scale, urgency or importance of the issue. Each barrier is important for understanding what prevents people from reporting hate crime. Victims might experience more than one of these barriers when they experience hate crime and consider whether to report their experience.

3.1 Lack of awareness

Key points:

• Not everyone is aware of what hate crime is and some people may not always recognise that they have been subjected to or witnessed an incident of hate crime
• Not all people know how to report hate crime and who it can be reported to, including the different ways of reporting to the police and a third party reporting centre
• Awareness raising strategies such as media campaigns and workshops have been shown to help improve understanding

Awareness of what hate crime is

Insights available suggest that not everyone is aware of what hate crime is and can recognise it in order to report experiences. For example, this point was noted in stakeholder feedback gathered in engagement carried out for the Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion (McBride, 2016). It also emerged in responses to a survey on hate crime carried out by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) (2021a), in relation to disability hate crime in particular. For instance, one respondent highlighted there can be challenges with:

Not knowing what is a crime. Feeling too vulnerable to tell anyone. Some people are victims of their own family and or friends. It happens so often to some people because they are different and could have been happening throughout their lives [so they don’t] know it's criminal.

McBride (2016) also highlighted suggestions from stakeholders and earlier research that crime targeting some groups, in particular disabled people, may be less likely to be recognised as hate crime than incidents targeting other groups.

In 2019, the British Red Cross published findings from a study exploring hate crime experiences of refugees and asylum seekers. Part of this involved a small-scale online survey. Eight out of the twelve operational staff respondents who work with refugees and asylum seekers believed that lack of awareness of what hate crime is and how to report it is one of the barriers for reporting hate crime incidents among this group (British Red Cross, 2019). This point also emerged as a theme in a focus group with young refugees carried out as part of the study.

Lastly, the 2025 Glasgow Household Survey explored whether respondents had been insulted, pestered, or intimidated on the basis of one of their characteristics.^[7] Whilst this question set may have captured experiences beyond hate crime, it found that 16% of respondents had experienced such an incident in the previous year. The majority (74%) of those affected had not reported the most recent (or only) incident to the police or anyone else. Of this group, 5% said this was because they did not realise they could report this type of incident (Glasgow City Council, 2025).

Awareness of how and to whom to report

Another obstacle where awareness can impact reporting of hate crime is that some people may not know how to report it and who to report it to. For instance, an online survey by HMICS found 10% of the almost 600 respondents pointed to a ‘lack of knowledge on how to report’ as a factor that prevents members of their community from reporting hate crime (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, 2021a). When looking specifically at those respondents who had experienced hate crime themselves and did not report it, 15.5% said ‘not knowing how’ was one of the reasons.

People are also not always aware that they can report incidents without going directly to the police. There is a network of third party reporting centres across the country that offer support in reporting hate crime. Instead of getting in touch with the police directly, these centres provide help to victims and can report incidents to the police on their behalf. The 2025 Glasgow Household Survey found that 78% of respondents were not aware they could report being insulted, pestered or intimated through a third party reporting centre; 42% were not aware they could report this to the Police Scotland website (Glasgow City Council, 2025). A lack of knowledge of this reporting route was also evident in some responses to the HMICS online survey mentioned above. Just over a fifth (22%) of hate crime victims who had not reported their experience said that having no knowledge of third party reporting centres was one of the reasons (HMICS, 2021a). Not knowing about alternatives to contacting the police is likely to contribute to under-reporting, given that some do not feel comfortable or confident contacting the police directly (as examined in section 3.2 below).

Campaigns to increase awareness of hate crime aim to highlight the potential impacts of hate crime on victims and communities, and provide signposting to reporting mechanisms (Pulleritz, 2020). These can include, but are not limited to, hate crime awareness days/weeks, events, conferences, advertising and social media activities. These have the potential to reach large audiences, and evaluation activities that measure the impact of campaigns tend to focus on the number of people that campaigns have reached.

Evaluations were conducted on the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Awareness Week campaigns. The ‘Hate has no Home in Scotland’ 2017 digital campaign aimed to increase public awareness of what a hate crime is and to empower those who witness or experience hate crime to report it. A pre and post campaign survey found a small increase in understanding what a hate crime is (Scottish Government, 2017). The ‘Dear Haters’ 2018 campaign pre and post evaluation also noted positive results such as a large social media reach with 1.6m video views and a small increase in respondents who agree that ‘it’s important to report hate crime to reduce it happening’. However, there was a slight decrease among respondents who claim they would report a hate crime if they witnessed it (Scottish Government, 2019). The ‘Hate Hurts’ 2024 campaign evaluation showed that 73% ‘planned to act as a result of the campaign’, including 46% who said they would report and 34% who would intervene if they witnessed a hate crime (Scottish Government, 2025a). This highlights the difficulty inferring a positive causal relationship between awareness and reporting.

One initiative to improve awareness and increase confidence to report hate crime, was the ‘Keep Safe Ambassadors’ programme. ‘I am Me’ and Police Scotland developed the ‘Keep Safe Ambassadors’ programme which was supported by the Crown Office Prosecution Service. Young people aged 14-18 were trained to ‘know how to recognise incidents of hate crime within the community and within school/centre environment, and how to report them safely’ (I am Me Scotland, 2023a). This was a one-day training programme delivered in high schools and in disability groups. Between 2016-2023 the programme trained 1,184 Keep Safe Ambassadors (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 2023). An evaluation found that 100% knew what a hate crime was after attending the training (I am Me Scotland, 2023b).

The UK Government’s 2020 Hate Crime Community Project Fund provided funding to a range of projects aimed at preventing hate crime and increasing reporting. Training young people as ambassadors was part of this wider initiative and aimed to embed young people’s learning beyond the lifetime of the project. Examples included working with transgender young people, equipping them with knowledge to tackle online hate speech, and training young people to become ambassadors to promote inclusive school environments. Anecdotal feedback from participants in two projects funded by the UK Government, suggested that the training increased participants’ knowledge of how and when to report hate crime, as well as their confidence in reporting. Participants felt that being associated with these projects allowed them to influence real change in combatting hate crime. Questionnaire responses from teachers in the schools highlighted that they felt that the ambassador roles improved students’ confidence and their ability to educate others (Pulleritz et al. 2020).

A further example of awareness raising workshops is the Stand Up! project. This project was run by Streetwise over three years (2016-19), to develop and deliver workshops to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia among young people (UK Government, 2018). The programme worked in schools to challenge young people to break down any stereotypes they hold about other groups, consider the consequences of persecution and discrimination, and tackle harmful, hateful opinions. The programme was delivered in over 50 schools across the country and reached over 8,000 young people with positive feedback from both students and teachers. Following engagement with StandUp! 87% of students said that they understand what hate crime is and that it is illegal, and 99% said that they have the same or better understanding of how to report and challenge hate crime (UK Government 2018).

3.2 Perceptions of the police and justice system

Key points:

• Some members of protected groups have negative perceptions of the police and justice system. This may be based on previous interactions that they or their communities have had with police
• Some people may fear or think the police will not take their report seriously, with some also having concerns about response of the wider criminal justice system

Negative perceptions of the police and justice system

Some people in protected groups are reluctant to report hate crime due to negative perceptions of the police and justice system. This emerged as a theme in lived experience engagement which informed the development of the Hate Crime Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2023a). Whilst trust and confidence in the police and authorities are wider concepts, some highlighted more specific concerns about how they or their communities have been or may be treated by authorities as leading to a lack of trust and a barrier to reporting. For example, in some cases this was related to feeling like no (suitable) action had been taken in prior incidents affecting them or others; or concerns about attitudes or behaviours they may encounter in interactions with the police including worries about prejudice or a lack of understanding of their community.

How communities have been treated historically can also be a factor. For example, as noted in the Hate Crime Strategy (Scottish Government, 2023a: 8), “for some people in the LGBT+ community, historic criminalisation is a deterring factor in reporting hate crime to the police”. Similarly, respondents to a survey by LGBT Youth Scotland (2022: 41) highlighted the “potential for police staff [to not understand] their experience as LGBTI person” as concerns which influenced their considerations about whether to report hate crime.

A research report on Scottish Trans and Non-binary experiences showed that 58% of those surveyed felt ‘very’ or ‘fairly dissatisfied’ with Police Scotland^[8] (Scottish Trans, 2024). Comments from the survey reflect varying degrees of mistrust and negative experiences of Police Scotland, for example feeling disbelieved or dismissed. Some comments show that negative experience impacts on their likelihood to report to the police in the future; one respondent said, “It’s at the point now where I wouldn’t even bother to contact the Police for anything”.

While some people’s mistrust in the police may be based on personal or local experiences with Police Scotland (or police in Scotland over a longer period), others may lack trust in the police and other public authorities based on experiences from other countries. In a small-scale British Red Cross (2019) study, even though most refugee and asylum seeker respondents (7 out of 12) said they were ‘not aware of any barriers’, the rest most frequently cited that fear of the authorities based on experiences in their country of origin was a barrier for reporting hate crime incidents in Scotland. In another study researchers found that “most of the [asylum seeker and refugee] interview participants shared that they feel confident in policing services in Scotland despite having had negative experiences in their countries of origin” (Vidal and Nisbet, 2023: 22). This suggests that the impact of prior experiences in other countries may be complex and variable. Additionally, perceptions of Police Scotland might need time to be established with confidence, as an Afghan refugee who had lived in Scotland for nearly a year when interviewed said (Vidal and Nisbet, 2023: 22):

It is difficult because I had experienced the behaviour of the police in Afghanistan…so roughly, yes [I trust them], but I need to see what [they are like here].

Relatedly, people with undetermined or insecure immigration status may not contact the police if they experience hate crime because of the fear that it may impact on their immigration status. Vidal and Nisbet (2023) report that this was a ‘major concern for all of the refugees and asylum-seekers’ interviewed in their study.

In May 2023, Police Scotland's Chief Constable at the time publicly acknowledged that “Police Scotland is institutionally racist and discriminatory” (Police Scotland, 2023) and highlighted activity intended to address this. The Chief Constable’s statement noted the importance of operational responses to reports from people with protected characteristics for ensuring people have the “confidence to come forward, the confidence to know you will be treated fairly, treated with respect and with assurance that Police Scotland will respond professionally and with compassion”.

Police training on hate crime therefore may play an important part in how hate crime is policed. For example, when asked “What could be done to improve the current structure for reporting hate crime?”, one respondent to an HMICS (2021a) survey^[9] on hate crime noted:

Better understanding of race related hate crimes and incidents. More training in cultural and racial issues. Improving community engagement and access to marginalised communities to build trust.

Police Scotland offers training to equip officers to address hate crime and serve diverse communities. All new recruits undertake a mandatory session on Hate Crime, followed by an additional programme delivered by the national Equality and Diversity team, focusing on policing in a diverse society. In addition, there are also around 100 hate crime advisors and a further 400 hate crime champions to support colleagues on hate crime matters, who have received specific training. These officers receive advanced training and play a key role in supporting and guiding colleagues when dealing with hate-related incidents.

Another example is training provided by the College of Policing (2023) for police services in England and Wales on ‘Responding to Hate’ as part of the National Vulnerability Learning Programme, launched in September 2018. The programme includes risk assessment/management and a hate crime scenario as part of the delivery model. This learning has been evaluated and shown to improve individual officer response to vulnerable people and vulnerability. This training provides case studies, as well as cultural sensitivity notes and definitions.

Concern that the report will not be taken seriously

Concerns that reporting a hate crime incident will not be taken seriously can also be a related barrier to reporting hate crime to the police. This can be based on prior experience where they or someone they know have reported a crime. For example, in the survey conducted by HMICS (2021a) to inform their Thematic Inspection of Hate Crime, 46% of the respondents who had reported a hate crime to the police said they were ‘not at all confident’ that Police Scotland had taken their complaint seriously. In the same survey, 67% of respondents who had experienced a hate crime and not reported it said this was because they did not think it would be taken seriously. Whilst just over a quarter (27%) of respondents believed that this issue was one of multiple factors preventing people in their community more generally from reporting hate crime (HMICS, 2021a: 68).

In some of the protected groups, an even higher number highlighted this issue. Among the 81 respondents identified as belonging to a minority ethnic group, 36 of them (44%) had been victims of hate crimes but did not report to the police. Twenty-six (72%) of this group stated that they did not report because they did not think their complaint would be taken seriously (HMICS, 2021a). One of the respondents in the HMICS survey (2021a: 83) explained:

People in my community [have] been attacked at different location[s] due to their colour and ethnicity. …Some [have] been reporting to the police and nothing has been done about it. Individuals in my community have lost interest in reporting hate crime to the police because they have not been [taken] seriously or provide necessary care to support them.

A similar theme also emerged amongst respondents to the 2025 Glasgow Household Survey who had been insulted, pestered or intimidated on the basis of one of their characteristics, but had not reported the most recent (or only) incident. Forty-two per cent of such respondents said they ‘did not feel confident that the police would take action’ was a reason they chose not to report.

The Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion (IAGHCPCC) noted in their 2016 report that “Confidence in reporting incidents of hate crime to the police continues to be too low”. The Independent Advisory Group stated that the police show strong leadership and have made significant progress in being more responsive and sympathetic. However, the Group still found that “some participants [in their stakeholder engagement] believe that the police are not always consistently confident in dealing with reports and that some believe that some types of hate crime are better understood and receive more attention” (IAGHCPCC, 2016). This is supported by more recent work, such as the Keep Safe Evaluation 2023 by I am Me Scotland (2023b), where a victim of disability hate crime stated:

After months of harassment and taking advice from friends and colleagues I did report harassment to the police, although was very apprehensive and waited months before I reported it. Sadly it was written off and unsure if I would report this again. This has […] to do with inexperienced police officers.

Having negative experiences when reporting previously may act as a barrier to contacting the police again. For example, a victim of repeated hate because of their Muslim faith told the Cross-Party Group on Tackling Islamophobia in Scotland that they “reported it a few times but no action is taken which deters you to report it in the future” (Hopkins, 2021: 24).

Where people have reported incidents to the police, many have said that they feel they were not updated regularly about their report and the progression of their case after reporting. According to the HMICS (2021a) survey, 73.5% of those who had reported a hate crime said they had not been provided with regular updates on their report. Such experiences can demotivate people from reporting future incidents. As one respondent explained, “if victims aren’t kept informed they just won’t bother next time” (HMICS, 2021a: 67).

Moreover, in the same survey, 33% expressed some degree of satisfaction (completely, mostly and somewhat), compared to 38% who expressed some dissatisfaction (completely, mostly and somewhat) in relation to how the criminal justice system deals with hate crime. In open text comments, several participants identified dissatisfaction with the court system in particular. One respondent noted that its “not just a lack of trust of the police that prevents people from reporting. It is equally off putting when considering the court system” (HMICS, 2021a: 73).

Dissatisfaction with the justice system thus exists on different levels. Data shows that the overwhelming majority of hate crime that results in a charge by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) leads to court proceedings. 1-5% of the charges reported in 2024-25 across all types of aggravations resulted in no action being taken^[10] (COPFS, 2025). However, this data does not tell us how satisfied the victims were with the outcome of court proceedings or the process, or the extent of the impact that concerns about the court system may have on reporting.

Lacking evidence and alternative ways of dealing with hate

Some people are also concerned that the police and justice system will not take their complaint seriously because of insufficient evidence. For example, in a 2022 survey of the LGBT community, a victim of hate crime expressed that “I don’t feel I would be believed, and even if I was it’s really hard to actually get any action taken against someone, especially when you have no proof” (LGBT Youth Scotland, 2022: 41).

As hate crime can take place everywhere, including online, by strangers and anonymous online accounts, victims may also consider whether they have evidence for the incident or information about the perpetrator to make a case to the police if they report it. “I never thought about reporting it because I didn’t even know who had done it,” said a respondent in one study by Galop (Hubbard, 2021: 47).

Likewise, a lack of witnesses (or other evidence) can mean victims do not feel empowered to report hate crime or that there is value in doing so (Hopkins, 2021: 26). All types of hate-related incidents can be reported by victims, witnesses, or someone acting on behalf of victims such as parents, carers, teachers, or employers. Witnesses can be crucial in supporting victims with proceeding their case as their testimonies can act as evidence for hate crimes. The Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion wrote in their report that they had heard “of many incidents where the absence of witnesses made prosecution difficult” (IAGHCPCC, 2016: 4).

However, even where witnesses are present, “victims of hate crime report persistent issues of ‘bystanding’ by members of the public rather than intervention in incidents of bullying, intimidation and hate crime” (IAGHCPCC, 2016: 12). There are four identified stages for effective bystander intervention (Berkowitz, 2009). These include: noticing the behaviour, interpreting it as a problem, feeling responsible for taking action, and having the skills and knowledge to act. While some people make an active decision to not intervene, others may not be aware that they can take a role and report a hate-related incident to the police or a third party reporting centre as a witness.

An online survey conducted by the Equality Network, largely exploring experiences of hate crime amongst people connected to LGBTI networks, found that 81% of respondents who had witnessed a hate-related incident did not report it to the police compared to 71% of those who had experienced such incidents themselves (Pearson and Magic, 2017). Reasons for witnesses not reporting hate crime included: “not feeling it was their place to do so, lack of time, not knowing how to do so, and perception that it would not be taken seriously” (Pearson and Magic, 2017: 13).

Similarly, another study explored reasons for a lack of bystander intervention as part of qualitative interviews with witnesses of hate crime (Flax et al. 2024). Where witnesses had not intervened, they most commonly said that this was due to their age and a lack of confidence, the perception that the victim might be handling the situation, and an assessment of the risk to themselves. Conversely, where witnesses did intervene during a hate crime, the most common motives were seeking justice and a perceived shared identity with the victim. The study emphasises the importance of awareness-raising of the positive effects of bystander intervention and the available options when witnessing a hate crime.

Lastly, restorative justice approaches to hate crime are said to have benefits to victims (Walters, n.d.). Restorative justice is an approach that brings together victims and perpetrators in a facilitated environment that fosters accountability and reparation. Reported benefits include improved wellbeing among victims. As one study showed, victims of hate crime interviewed after engaging in restorative justice said that feelings of anger, fear and anxiety reduced. They also benefitted from playing an active role in the resolution process and felt listened to. Research frequently suggests that perpetrators of hate crime are less likely to reoffend following restorative justice intervention (Walters, 2019).

3.3 Perception that the offence is not serious enough or is commonplace

Key points:

• Some people may not report experiences of hate crime because they believe the incident is not serious enough
• Relatedly, hate and prejudice can happen frequently so it feels a part of everyday life and not something victims always feel is worth reporting

Some people may not report experiences of hate crime because they believe the incident is not serious enough. For example, in the Glasgow Household Survey 2025, 43% of the respondents who were insulted, pestered or intimidated on the basis of their characteristics but did not report the most recent (or only) incident to the police said that they “did not feel that the incident was serious enough to report” (Glasgow City Council, 2025: 55). This made it the most frequently cited reason for not reporting according to this study.

Relatedly, for some communities, hate and prejudice can be so commonplace, it leads people to classify some incidents as ‘serious’ and others as ‘less serious’, where the latter are considered not worthy of reporting. As one respondent explained in a report on LGBT hate crime (Hardy and Chakraborti, 2020: 14):

When someone shouts something at us, we don't class that as abuse. We don't class that as a serious offence.

The report found that the “normalisation of such experiences is one of the key barriers to reporting hate incidents”. According to the report, there is a tendency that members of protected groups treat violent acts as ‘serious’ while verbal assaults are sometimes normalised into their lives and not considered ‘serious enough’ to be reported (Hardy and Chakraborti, 2020: 13-15). The Advisory Group on Hate Crime, Prejudice and Community Cohesion also expressed concern in 2016 about what they heard of “the acceptance by many people in these minority communities that a certain amount of abuse is just ‘part of life’” (Scottish Government, 2016: 4).

Similarly, respondents to a survey on LGBT hate crime noted that many believed that “any incident they reported would not be worth wasting police time for unless it was ‘severe enough’ to be worth the effort” (LGBT Youth, 2022: 41). Hate crime legislation includes all types of malice and ill-will expressed against protected groups, regardless of whether it is expressed verbally or violently. However, the above insights indicate that people may classify experiences differently when they assess whether to report.

Moreover, people can have pragmatic reasons for not reporting, as the hate might be common and take place frequently, such as online hate crime. “‘If I were to report it, I’d be doing it most weeks,” as stated by a person with a disability (Hewitt, 2022: 8). In a study by Galop into hate crime experienced by the LGBT+ community, only 13% of respondents to an online survey reported their most recent experience of anti-LGBT+ violence or abuse to the police. When asked why they did not report it, 51% said it was ‘too trivial/not worth it’, and 38% said it “happens too often” (Hubbard, 2021: 46). The Hate Crime Strategy for Scotland also notes that the nature of hate crime is evolving and increased social media use has changed how communities experience hate crime, and for some this can feel constant (Scottish Government, 2023a).

3.4 Ongoing impacts of hate crime

Key points:

• Some victims of hate crime do not report their experience due to concerns it may lead to retaliation by perpetrators. In many cases the victim knows the perpetrator which can make the decision about reporting complicated
• Post-incident support for victims can help reduce emotional harms and increase victims’ engagement in the investigation and court process
• Some people may fear exposure of details about the incident or their identity, which they do not want others to know about, if they report

Victims of hate crime may not report their experience because they fear that the situation will escalate or worsen by telling the police. This can be due to, for instance, the risk of reprisals from the perpetrator, trauma from the incident, and fear that others will know about the incident that the victim do not want to know.

Fear of reprisals

Some victims of hate crime do not report their experience due to concerns it may lead to retaliation by perpetrators. For example, in a survey on experiences of anti-LGBT+ incidents, 26% of those who had not reported their most recent experience to the police highlighted concerns about retaliation and making matters worse as a reason (Hubbard, 2021). A small proportion (4%) of respondents to the 2025 Glasgow Household Survey also noted this as a reason they had not reported their experience of being insulted, perstered or intimidated based on one of their characteristics. Similarly, this theme emerged as a potential barrier to reporting hate crime in feedback from respondents to an HMICS survey in 2021. The need for support and victim safety was highlighted as a related point in feedback received. For example, one respondent noted that “[p]eople need assurance (not only in words) that they will be safe and will not be identified by reporting hate crime” (HMICS, 2021a: 63). Another respondent, who it appears had reported a hate-related incident, explained the concern that can arise when an experience is reported:

I was scared for days thinking he would find out that I have tried to raise a complaint and he would harm me or my family. What a scary experience of feeling totally helplessness (HMICS, 2021a: 63).

With this sort of concern in mind, another respondent highlighted the need to focus on prevention of hate crime “rather than reporting, as many disabled people are just too scared to report” (HMICS, 2021a: 80).

In many cases, the victims of hate crime know and have an existing relationship with perpetrators. This may make the decision to report more difficult, especially as the risk of retribution might feel more acute and real. A study on the characteristics of police recorded hate crime in Scotland in 2020-2021, estimated that in 38% of hate crime incidents (where the victim was not a police officer in the line of duty, a business or organisation) the victim and the perpetator were acquaintances; there was a professional relationship in 7% of cases; and in 5% there was either a family or partner/ex-partner relationship between victim and perpetrator (Scottish Government, 2023d). When considering disability aggravated hate crimes, only 26% involved a perpetrator not known to the victim, with the same percentage also applying to crimes aggravated by religion (Scottish Government, 2023d). Moreover, a report on the police and prosecution response to crimes (in general) against older people in England and Wales sugests that older people fear retribution if they report experiences of victimisation, especially if the perpetrator is a carer (HMICFRS and HMCPSI, 2019). In such cases, the relationships between victims and care-givers may further complicate considerations around reporting.

Traumatic effects of hate crime

People who experience hate crime may experience trauma from the incident. For example, Walters (n.d.) notes that research shows that victims of hate crimes are “more likely to experience emotional harms including anxiety, fear, shock, and depression, which are frequently endured for longer periods of time, compared with victims of similar but non-hate-motivated offences”. The process of reporting and recalling what happened may therefore be difficult for victims. As a result, ensuring suitable support is in place for people after reporting may also have a role to play in reducing the barriers to reporting. Post-trauma support can include steps such as following up after the report, increased communication, the provision of therapy or counselling and a dedicated helpline (Scottish Government, 2022b).

Another strategy to address the potentially traumatic effects of hate crime is through providing group support to victims. This can lead to reduced feelings of isolation because of the interaction and sharing of experiences that the setting provides (Pulleritz et al, 2020). A project funded by the UK Government Hate Crime Community Fund conducted interviews with participants of support groups. Victims of hate crimes who participated in the interviews highlighted that group support was positive and that they benefitted both in terms of receiving support from the trained volunteers, but also from the presence of other participants in the group (Pulleritz et al, 2020).

An issue that can arise during the reporting process is case attrition – or victim withdrawal – during the police investigation. This is where victims decide they no longer wish to support the progression of the case. To overcome this issue, particularly in instances of domestic abuse, follow-up visits from police officers can have positive effects on victim reporting and uptake of services (Petersen et al, 2022 in Whitten and Went, 2025). Among hate crime victims, a study showed that victims who were contacted by a community police officer not connected to the case reduced victim withdrawal by 12-15% compared to the group that did not receive this contact (Whitten and Went, 2025).

To improve victims’ experience during the post-reporting process, Police Scotland issues ‘Victim Care Cards’ to all victims of crime which have details of victim support services and details of the enquiry officer for further contact (Police Scotland, 2014). Victims of hate crime are also asked to complete the Police Scotland ‘Hate Crime User Experience Survey’ which gives victims the opportunity to provide feedback which could inform where improvements could be made to support future victims and communities (Police Scotland, n.d.).

Unwanted exposure of personal information

Lastly, people can fear that reporting will reveal information that they do not want others to know. For example, some respondents to research on LGBT experiences of hate crime have highlighted concerns about having to disclose their sexuality or gender identity to the police or family in order to report their experience (LGBT Youth Scotland, 2022; Equality Network and Scottish Trans, 2017).

3.5 Accessibility and language barriers

Key points:

• Victims of hate crime can face accessibility obstacles that pose barriers to reporting. This can be related to awareness of what crime is and how to report due to the format that information is available in, or might be related to the accessibility of reporting mechanisms themselves
• Police Scotland offer several ways to report hate crime which collectively seek to overcome different barriers to reporting and accommodate the needs or preferences of victims and witnesses. This includes being able to report crimes online as well as in person and over the phone. Translation and interpretation services also play a role
• Training for service providers to improve awareness of accessibility and communication challenges faced by some individuals can also be helpful in ensuring victims are supported appropriately

There are multiple ways in which accessibility issues can pose barriers to reporting hate crime. On the one hand, this can be linked to awareness, as information on what hate crime is and the different ways it can be reported, might not be accessible and have reached all those vulnerable to experience hate and prejudice. For example, one respondent in an HMICS survey on hate crime (2021a: 69) noted that “Too often the only information is online...and not everyone is online. Information about hate crime needs to be accessible and inclusive - it needs to relate to the people it is targeting.” On the other hand, victims might be aware of what hate crime is but may face challenges reporting their experiences, for example, due to communication issues related to their English language proficiency or disability. For example, a small number of respondents to the HMICS survey (2021a) noted communication-related challenges as reasons they personally had not reported experiences of hate crime. However, the idea of ensuring reporting options were accessible emerged as a more general theme suggested by respondents when asked about steps which could improve the current structure for reporting hate crime.

The challenges which language barriers in particular can pose for both reporting crime in general and having effective engagement with the police and other services were highlighted in research by Vidal and Nisbet (2023). The authors suggest that ineffective interpretation and translation can also impact on wider trust and confidence in the police. These insights may indicate that some barriers to reporting can overlap and interact with each other. Similarly, McBride (2016: 40) highlights feedback from the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability that “the reporting mechanisms are often not set up to take account of the additional needs of [people with learning disabilities]…which contribute[s] to under-reporting”.

Police Scotland offer several ways to report hate crime which collectively seek to overcome different barriers to reporting and accommodate the needs or preferences of victims and witness. For instance, in addition to reporting incidents by phoning or attending a police station, Police Scotland has an online reporting tool. This allows individuals to report an incident they have experienced, or report on behalf of someone else. Online reporting, such as a previous initiative ‘Keep Safe Scotland app’, can support victims and witnesses to overcome barriers that they might experience when using other reporting methods.

Police Scotland can also offer assistance from a language interpreter if English is not a first language (Police Scotland, 2018). Additionally, the Contact Scotland BSL video relay service enables British Sign Language users to make phone calls through the assistance of a video interpreter, including for example to public authorities such as the police (Police Scotland, n.d.).

As mentioned in section 3.1, where victims and witnesses of hate crime do not want to report to the police, they can also report in-person to a hate crime third party reporting centre. The Centres have staff who are trained to recognise hate crime and may help a victim or witness submit a report to the police, or they can do it on the individuals’ behalf (mygov.scot, 2021). A list of the local third party reporting centres is available on Police Scotland’s website (Police Scotland, n.d.). However, a 2016 evaluation showed that 89.4% of 146 third party reporting centres reported that the centre had either been inactive or not very active the previous year (‘not very active’ was defined as having received 1-2 reports the previous year) (Maguire, 2017). 10.6% said they were active or very active. Of these centres, 61% said that they used Police Scotland’s online reporting tool to report hate crime on behalf of the victim/witness.

Another way in which Police Scotland has aimed to improve accessibility more generally is through the 2019 Police Scotland Estate Strategy which saw a number of police stations close and merge with other co-location services (Police Scotland, 2019). A public consultation helped to inform the Strategy and identify the needs of communities. This includes the co-location of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal, the Children’s Reporter Administration, social work services and emergency services within the same building. A Police Scotland report evaluated three co-location services and found that they have a positive impact on community accessibility due to improved community integration, and modern, fit-for-purpose facilities (Police Scotland, 2019).

Finally, police training may help to tackle accessibility barriers. The #ImWithSam campaign led by Dimensions, an organisation that supports people with learning disabilities and neurodiversity, conducted training with Surrey Police (Dimensions, 2019). They trained over 1,000 police officers on disability hate crime and making reasonable adjustments for victims. The training included practical strategies to improve inclusive communication methods. An evaluation of the training showed, following a hate crime report, a 22% increase in officers’ confidence recognising that a victim might have a disability, and a 20% increase in officers’ confidence applying a hate crime marker to a report from a disabled victim. A noted success of the training was hearing from people with lived experience in its delivery.